Lunars vs. Romans

From: Nick Brooke <Nick_Brooke_at_btinternet.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 08:55:25 +0100


It is a Generally Accepted Pseudo-Gloranthan Truth (one of the things both Greg and Sandy would agree to, I believe) that the Lunar Army (with magic) is better than the Roman Army, and that the Lunar Army (without magic) is worse. So the Lunars aren't better than the Romans.

I would add that IMO the weapon mix for Pelorians in the Genertelan Players' Book is lazy and wrong: the typical Lunar infantryman simply ain't a Roman legionary (with pilum and gladius). Roll back to Hellenistic or Classical Greek if you want a look at what's going on.

The Greek 'kopis' sword used as a sidearm by hoplites is kinda betwixt and between a shortsword and a scimitar (look at a piccy some time), so I don't have problems with Lunar hoplites carrying a scimitar for use in emergencies. The primary offensive weapon of the hoplite is his spear, not his scimitar. He uses the scimitar when something has gone horribly wrong. (NB: that great big shield he carries is also important as a secondary offensive weapon, useful for slamming opponents aside and inflicting broken bones).

It is unusual IMO for a Lunar Army unit to use scimitars as its primary weapon in massed combat, although some cases are known (these include the famous Steel Swords Legion, an all-Yanafali elite force who fight en masse using iron scimitars and look really cool on the battlefield). But Yanafali officers would almost always carry a scimitar, as a matter of honour and a symbol of their rank. A Yanafali without a scimitar is only slightly more common than a Humakti without a sword.

:::: Email: <mailto:Nick_Brooke_at_btinternet.com>
Nick
:::: Website: <http://www.btinternet.com/~Nick_Brooke/>


Powered by hypermail